Skip to main content

tv   Youth and Climate Change  CSPAN  April 20, 2017 6:26pm-7:22pm EDT

6:26 pm
>> a group of 21 american students aged 9-19 is suing president trump over the u.s. government's climate change policy which they claim puts their future in jeopardy. they're seeking a court order that requires the government to quickly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. one of the plaintiffs, 19-year-old college student ty ya hatton and her attorneys, spoke to the commonwealth club of san francisco about the case. this is just over an hour. >> our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. is there a right not to be harmed by climate change? and our speakers tonight are a distinguished group with phil gregory, partner, cogett, petri and mcarthur, llp. tia hatton, youth plaintiff in the constitution and public
6:27 pm
trust case and julia olson, executive director, our children's trust. so please welcome our wonderful panel and greet them for us. [applause] and we'll ask bill to begin. >> well, we just saw, for those of you who haven't heard, an amazing judicial feat today where the ninth circuit in a3-0 -- in a 3-0 opinion kept the temporary restraining order nationwide in place over the travel ban. and that is -- [cheers and applause] it's wonderful news, and it's an excellent example about how our courts who serve as the third
6:28 pm
branch of government check the other two branches, the congress and the executive, when they overstep their bounds. but courts don't just stop actions, courts can cause actions, courts can cause the executive branch to take steps. and that's the basis of our suit. and with that, i'm going to turn it over to julia olson, executive directer of our children's trust and co-lead counsel on our case. >> thanks, phil. and thanks, everyone, for being here tonight. thanks to ann and the commonwealth club for organizing the event, and it's great to see such support here for the young people this involved in this case. so the last case that you about to hear about for the next hour or so is really a case for everybody, and it's a case for all the children in your lives who you love. and so i want to start by telling you the story of one
6:29 pm
child who's a plaintiff in the case. she's 13 years old, her name is jaden, and she lives in louisiana. and for those of you in the audience, you can see the picture of her on the screen. and on august 15th at five a.m., she stepped out of her bed and stepped into water that was up to her ankles in her home. this was during the storms you might remember last august in the south. and this her words, she -- in her words, she stepped out of bed and stepped right into climate change. the waters are flowing in, they're coming up through the floors of her home, through the roof, pouring this. there also is sewage water that's flowing out of the tubs and the sinks and the toilets in her home. so she's at home with her siblings. her mom was trying to help neighbors and friends who were struggling with flooding from the day before. took her 13 hours to go several miles to get home to her children. she was thigh-deep in water, and her car was flooded.
6:30 pm
so jaden's family survived the flood. thirteen people in the region died. and our federal government said that this is a 1,000-year storm event, but the problem is they aren't coming every 1,000 years anymore, they're coming with increased frequency and severity.
6:31 pm
on whose behalf they stand. so we connect them with lawyers and bill gregory who donates all his time pro bono. he's been doing that for six years along with other people. [applause] and he truly is a hero. he has been in it from the beginning and there are many lawyers like him around the country and around the world who are doing the same thing on the half of youth everywhere. its global action that we support. so the laws that they really turn to in this effort are foundational laws. they are laws that explain why we have government in the first place and what our views -- basic human rights are in one of those is the public trust factor. this goes back to nature roman times and the code.
6:32 pm
it's the baseline, the bedrock of legal systems around the world and it's simple. says the government as a sovereign trustee holds vital resources that we depend upon ensuring comments like air and water in trust for the benefit of future and present generations. the citizens all of you out there that we represent are they beneficiaries as our future generations. those resources need to be good so they can be there or everyone's benefit and not just for the exploitation by the fossil fuel industry. so another thing that's clear about what our throat as children's trust as we are not willing to compromise the stability for climate system and the longevity of the resources we need for survival. so we look to scientists and experts from around the globe who are doing the most incredible research to identify what needs to happen to protect
6:33 pm
the climate system for great, great, great grandchildren what they say the two degrees celsius rise in temperatures is actually catastrophic rate humans have ever lived in that kind of world and we will see catastrophic sea level rise and storms beyond belief. we will see trout and chaos and destruction through what we really need to do and we can do it is for me to return to an atmosphere of carbon dioxide level of three and 50 parts per million and we need to stabilize temperatures in the long-term warming of one degree celsius. all of our actions of the half of youth are uncompromising in based on science. i hope you are seeing the rise library. the other thing before i turned
6:34 pm
over to bill to talk more about this movement and its campaign is really strategic litigation that is coordinated and based on the campaign so we do a lot of media work and to get a platform to speak and they look to other improvements to inform the work that we are doing and i will let bill talk about some of those. >> i'm going to use three expressions. one is unprecedented, another a novel theory, third this is no ordinary lawsuit. to think these would be coming from press but in fact they are from the opinions, judges have written about our case. but we are really not a new theory. this has been going on for decades. when we first started formulating these cases we focused on the sofa rights cases and we said it's the youth that
6:35 pm
were put front and center, not only through high school anti-segregation rallies but the naacp put kids on trial as well as the science showing the harm that separate but equal was causing to the kids in the south. an excellent book on this if you haven't read it is richard kluger's book simple justice. it's on the history of brown verses board of education and how they got to the decision but essentially what the naacp was doing his putting civil rights on trial by having the youth as well as scientists from around the nation testify about the harms that were occurring so if you read the brown decision it really talks about the science that was put before the courts.
6:36 pm
another thing, a book that i want to commend to you that i handed out my last copy is called unlikely heroes by a guy named jack bass and what it is, it's about the judges in the fifth circuit in the south who had to implement these decisions judges who would courageously trip on the entire ingrained segregated world and we thought there were judges in the south that can do that, are there judges nowadays who are prepared to take on the fossil fuel industry. the other cases we look at root the tobacco cases and we all know that the tobacco industry was very vague doubt it is their product and that's a book by david michaels. the whole theme for the tobacco
6:37 pm
industry is sowing uncertainty and based on the documents we have gathered and we have received from independent sources, the same public relations folks, the same lobbying outfits that were dealing with tobacco or in parallel dealing with loyal companies. so the other cases we have been looking at to track tracker the cases involving wall street. my partner just wrote a book people verses greed and that is what is really going on out there. we are trying to address problems that wall street wants to continue to exist so how do we do that? how do we go after these groups of people? recently california had a major line of cases involving its prison system and the prisoners
6:38 pm
went after the prison system and said what we are enduring, the conditions we are enduring, overcrowding, poor medical treatment, those violate the eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause. so they went after the california prison system. those of you who don't know about this line of cases it's fascinating because the prison system was found to be so overcrowded that the target the court set for the prison system to achieve that said okay you will be okay if you hit a target is 135% occupancy. so they tend to bring it down in the court said we are going to start releasing prisoners until you get to that target and that's a very important for our case when we talk about later. the court setting a target and
6:39 pm
requiring the governmental body to reach that target, to come up with a plan and if the governmental body can't come up with a plan, nice person cases they say we will have that prisoners set up a plan to come up with the target and lo and behold the prison system came up with that target. finally i just want to say the last things we focused in on is who is going to be the most harmed by what the government has known historic way about what's going on with climate change and obviously the people who are going to be the most harmed our youth and future generations. that is how we came to determine that kids might be an excellent group to bring this case.
6:40 pm
why do you talk about how you became a plaintiff here? >> i'm one of the 21 youth. it was the spring of my senior year so in 2015 before august of 2015 when we filed the lawsuit and i was in bend oregon, my hometown. we were with a group of high-schoolers trying to bring bring -- basically we were trying to go to city council meetings to get lie action plan to cut carbon emissions. this was because eugene had just passed a similar plan and how they did that was youth have consistently gone to city council meetings telling them that their rights were being infringed upon and eugene needed to be responsible to cut carbon emissions. a group of us in bend were trying to do that as well. through that, i got connected
6:41 pm
with kelsey and eugene who had previously been on the oregon state case and she contacted me asking if i want to be part of meaningful climate change. by meaningful she meant going to the root of the issue which was suing the federal government. i was intrigued of course. my parents were -- and it was intriguing to me because i've always been interested in environmental law. i was interested in this area than by then i was deeply concerned about the place that i love. it was more than just the fact that past winter i had seen my favorite ski trail being closed down because of lack of snow. it was the places that i'd love to the people that i loved were being threatened because water is central to life. it begins as the small things
6:42 pm
and it grows and grows and once you realize the impact that chuck -- climate change he relies how expensive it is and how it's affecting everyone. it's kind of a no-brainer to jump on something like that. i can honestly say i didn't realize exactly what was going to be like and i'm so excited that it has grown to be this big. i don't think i knew it was going to be this big. each of us, each of the plaintiffs we all have a background in environmental activism and we all have our own injuries listed in our complaint against the federal government is their own injuries. as you can see and what julia talk about is there are 20 plaintiffs and two of my good friends in roseburg and farms in roseburg that are being threatened in the list really
6:43 pm
goes on. we each have our own stories and julia gets in court until some very eloquently. she is against the federal government which is really what our case is alleging, against the federal government. she is going to explain why we have gone against the federal government and not just the fossil fuel industry which is something that is important to distinguish. >> thanks kia. [applause] one theme i think you will see as we talked tonight is storytelling is really important and bringing out the human element and how climate change is impacting people so we will share a few more of the youth stories as we go along tonight. i want to talk about the claims in the complaint. we filed in august of 2015. we filed against the united states, the president the departments and agencies that are responsible for our fossil
6:44 pm
fuel-based energy system and also responsible for not controlling the pollution that's coming out of that. i will tell you the claims and make it as simple and understandable as possible. this is a constitutional case which protects our rights through life liberty and property. the fifth amendment is a substantive due process of our constitution. what it means is that government can't do things that infringe on our rights to life liberty and property. in this case the personal limo security of these young people, their very lives and their future and for many of them who live in coastal regions their property is being threatened by the actions of the federal government. i will go into that a little bit more but one part of the claim
6:45 pm
is when the government knows that it's putting citizens in danger it creates a duty on government because i'm asked to prevent that danger or if the danger exists for them to do something about it. they can't act with in difference to the harm they have created so a really important part of our cases looking back at for just how long the united states has known that if we keep burning fossil fuels that would cause catastrophic climate change. when we started doing research for that case we were shocked to find the knowledge of the facts in the 40s and 50's and perhaps earlier in the early part of the 1900s. there was a moment in 1965 when lyndon b. johnson issued a report out of the white house and there was an entire chapter on atmospheric change in climate
6:46 pm
change. they predicted with unbelievable accuracy what was going to happen if we kept digging up and burning fossil fuels. they know it would cause ocean gasification and climate destabilization and they knew the impact would be catastrophic. this is a letter from 1969 and you can see on the screen the letter refers to the potential for apocalyptic change. in terms of talking about sea level rise they wrote this in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet, goodbye new york and goodbye washington for that matter. this is 1965 knowledge. during the nixon white house in 1970 another report came out that said in the longer term the quality of the atmosphere will may well determine whether man survives or parishes. so i want everyone who is listening to this to really
6:47 pm
understand the long-lasting knowledge that climate change poses to our survival. and the question and i was showing another chart for this but this is going back to 1975 all the way to the present. the various key moments in time when our government issued reports and made critical findings by the top scientists around the world and by the highest levels of our government although as to the presidency about the need to act on climate change. this is repeated every decade. every administration. we need to act on climate change and transition off of fossil fuels but instead what we did is we committed more development, more production, more leasing of our public lands for oil and gas extraction and kole extraction and we kept the fossil fuel-based energy system in place so that no citizen could
6:48 pm
do anything about this. this truly is a government embedded system that we all depend upon. so just for a little comic relief there have been a lot of international processes that you all probably know about this climate talks going back 22 years. united states initiated those to defer taking action on climate change. the whole united nations convention was orchestrated by the united states to avoid setting limits on climate solutions and to keep talking and talking and talking. we agreed to sign a pledge to hold another meeting to consider changing course at a date yet to be determined. that's what our world leaders have been doing. so this is levi. he is nine and his island is seeing a sea level rise right now.
6:49 pm
he has ordered lost a playground he is played on all of his life in his home will will be underwater but we are doing. they bring him up because one part of the case is about discrimination against young people and their right for protection under the law. if you think of the decision saying that everyone has a right to marry, that case was about protecting a group of people who are being discriminated against with respect to the exercise of a fundamental right. these children are being discriminated against with their ability to exercise their sentimental ride not have their security threatened. i just want to show you to mark quick slides and for those listening, this slide shows under president obama's clean power plan which was in his words the single most important thing to united states has ever done on climate change would
6:50 pm
essentially sidelined our admissions, our climate solution all the way to 2040. when we lose coal-fired power plants we reduce emissions and this is one of the biggest threats perpetrated on the american public, to lead them to believe that the clean power plan is going to solve climate change and it was never intended to do so. conversely this shows how steep our emission cuts really need to be to get back to safe levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there's a blue dotted line that shows if we started when the epa said we should have started it would have been a 19 year transition but now this steep decline is significant and that's why we aim to achieve in this case. joe is going to tell you about the defenses they have race. >> raised.
6:51 pm
>> this his ankle clark in the environment of natural resources forum. you are listening to the commonwealth of california. our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. is there a right not to be harmed by climate change? bill gregory from petri and mccarthy llp, plaintiff and constitutional public trust case and julia olson executive director of our children's trusts. bill, back to you. >> thanks ann. i'm in the defending positions of corsica to wear the black hat here. let's start off, we only sued the federal government so the first step in the case was a key trade association for the fossil fuel industries petroleum and the national association of
6:52 pm
manufacturers, they moved to intervene in our case. why did they do that? they said if this case goes forward and these kids when our business could be dramatically cut back and very well could be eliminated so the judge let in these trade associations as defendants. then we had to face what everybody faces in litigation. called a motion to dismiss. they say you are claims are all hooey and the first thing of the hooey argument is what we called standing. standing means somebody has to prove that under article iii of our constitution they have a viable case or controversy. standing has three elements. the first element is there has been an injury and the defendants argue you no climate
6:53 pm
change is so bad, it's so widespread that these grievances are general for everybody and under the law you can't sue for a generalized grievance so these plaintiffs don't have standing because they are merely asserting a generalized reason, not that there have been individually injured. next, they said causation. they said that the injury that these plaintiffs suffer may have to be traceable to the defendant's conduct. you know what, this is what the defendants say. there's no way that these claimants are going to be able to prove that the federal government caused any climate change. let me tell you that the court
6:54 pm
just quickly to an aside, put that on. the court said you know any decision denying a motion to the smiths, the judge akin said the defendants as we alleged in her complaint are responsible for more than 25% of global co2 emissions. in the united states alone more than 25% and because we were able to show there was a significant share, the court said these plaintiffs can prove causation. the third thing about standing, the third claim the defendants asserted is that the court can can't do anything about this. you can't do anything about this there are so many wonderful regulations out there. let us keep passing and enacting
6:55 pm
regulations and that's what we should be doing because judge you cannot do anything. the judge took them to task on that saying if the plaintiffs could show, these kids can show that the defendants have control over a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions than a reduction in those emissions will by nature slow climate change, reduce the probability of harm and the plaintiffs would then be able to redress their injuries. so we were able to get around that. the other argument the defendants raised is what we all call separation of powers, and argument called political question and political question is not something that involves politics. what it does mean is a branch of government, the judicial branch
6:56 pm
should not get involved in matters that are interested through other branches of government. foreign policy for example in the constitution has entrusted that to the exact it is you court should stay out of it. it's called the political question doctrine and de tocqueville in his democracy in america observed there is hardly any political question and the united states that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question. we saw that as we said earlier in the immigration ban but here the court said it doesn't matter that the court has to choose which agencies or sectors should reduce emissions or by how much. the court is not going to direct
6:57 pm
any particular action. the judge here is going to as we request and julie will talk more about this and a moment, set a target as we talked about in the present cases and have the defendants, up with a plan to hit that target. so as the court said that's how we are going to do this. the court is going to issue an order but the executive branch is going to implement that order. what we are alleging is that the federal government's aggregate actions, systemic actions are harming these kids. i want to point out that in the oral argument the federal government started off by saying climate change poses a monumental threat and when the
6:58 pm
judge turned to the attorney representing the fossil fuel industry and asked him, well do you agree that there's a threat imposed by human caused climate change and that attorney refused to take a position in the court, refused to take a position. we know now that the fossil fuel industry based on documents we have clearly was influencing the president. for example we have the american petroleum institute, one of the trade associations that intervened having in 1998 an action plan. victory will be assured when we create doubt in everybody's minds. dowd is their product. that's what they are coming vacation's plan was in 1998.
6:59 pm
another we have is a state department memo and it's between two officers and the united states state department stating that they are going to talk to a group called the global climate coalition of which the american petroleum institute and the national association of manufacturers are members and they are going to say the president of the united states in this point is george w. bush rejected the kyoto treaty in part based on input from you. the fossil fuel industry defendants were working hand in glove with the executive t. keep the fossil fuel systemic problem in place. that has been one of the major issues that has come out in the court proceedings. kia waitangi spent a minute talking about what it's like in a court proceeding.
7:00 pm
>> it's definitely something i'm aware of when i'm lined up with a 20th or youth we look at the government lawyer sitting side-by-side with the fossil fuel lawyers and the first time i was sitting there looking at them and i was wondering, do you have children? i was shocked because up until this point in my life i thought the government had been doing a fine job but i really realized seeing that visually they were sitting side-by-side and i was hearing them in a court of law, things that we don't have rights to a livable future is really discouraging. our argument in the days of hearings are full of discouragement and encouragement. you go in with the nurse energy. we are really excited for julia. they are sitting on the left side locally and they are championing -- i did not mean it like that.
7:01 pm
[laughter] julia is like a champion storyteller so it's like there is a lot of legal statute and the previous cases that they go off. some of them are over my head. i'm one of the oldest so. there is a lot of legal stuff going on but there are also storytelling. there's a moral side to climate change affecting humans and something julia doesn't alec wood job bringing that in. it brings tears to people's eyes there to overflow rooms full of people and it's being streamed in portland which is really awesome. once we leave the courtroom that's when it's really cool. when we get out there there are hundreds of people, hundreds of supporters of all ages. a lot of kids who have come from
7:02 pm
in town but also out of town and are rallying and shouting encouragement. it's really encouraging because i know that everyone in that crowd has their own story to and it's also encouraging to see the media fair to show that there are people here supporting it to show the judge that people are mobilized behind this important issue and they know we have a right to this. that is going to continue to be more and more hardened as we go to trial and that's something to keep in mind too. i don't know if julie was going to mention this but beyond the fact that i think julia has the mainstream arguments and we have a really great case they make it seem like they are in favor of our case which i didn't even know was allowed when i heard judge akin in the last hearing what he was -- the government
7:03 pm
for not settling with us because they knew that obama was turned to come up with a plan and they just came up and the first thing they said was admitting climate change was from human caused. basically the judge said why are you sitting down with these kids and coming up with a plan? if you can't get stuff through other branches of the government why are you sitting down with these kids? i was shocked. we were all looking at each other the kids and i appeared it was exciting and left us with a lot of hope. i was confused. stuff doesn't usually go your way but coming out of that hearing and having your decision come out right after trump was a lot good, it's really a process
7:04 pm
of hope and i'm excited for the discovery and the trial as well. >> thanks for all the kind words. it's really amazing to be at the federal courthouse and anything that phil or i have experience in her legal careers. a packed courtroom full of people and people waiting outside to hear about what the next steps were in the case. it's great to have that level of public engagement. people are really seeing this third branch of government in action so i encourage you all to come and check it out sometime in eugene. two days after we got our new president and it wasn't the one that some of us wanted we got a great decision from the federal court. it's a beautiful read. if anyone likes to read legal discussions we also have shorter
7:05 pm
summaries on our children's check was it you can check that out there want to read you one of my favorite parts of her decision. she said there is no doubt that the right to the climate system of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society without which there would be neither civilization nor process. for those who don't know a lot about our implied liberties that behold under the constitution there has only been probably less than 10 times in the history of our nation for the supreme court has recognized and applied rights that aren't explicitly written in our constitution. those rights include the right to travel, the right to parent your children, the right to protect from pirates on the high
7:06 pm
seas in case any of you were interested and the right to privacy, the right to marriage, the right to self-defense. the fact that this court has recognized for the first time in our country's history the right to a climate system that sustains life in an environment that's safe for our children is really remarkable and important as we move forward. the other thing that the court found is that the public trust doctrine applies to our federal government did not just to our state. the federal government has an obligation to protect the resources that are under its control by our territorial ocean waters and let's protect those for the benefit of present and future generations. it's an affirmative duty by government to protect our oceans are threatened with acidification and c. level rise and we need to take a little
7:07 pm
radio break. >> this his ankle clark chair of the environment of natural resources form. you are listening to the commonwealth club of california. our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. is there a right not to be harmed by climate change with phil gregory a partner and could check pietri a mccarthy llc, youth plaintiff and constitution and public trust and you have been listening just now to julia olson the executive director of our children's trusts. we have come to that point in our program for our audience questions and we will start at just as soon as i get them to fill. phil will be asked to refer back your questions but if you have questions you would like to ask please bring them up. that would be wonderful. >> thank you.
7:08 pm
so we have some questions here. i'm going to start with this one. connections with schools could be a powerful way to spread awareness of your position. your plaintiffs are an example of empowerment for students. how about schools having ways to bring the constitution and ideas of civic duty to light. how can schools to that? julia, what do you think? >> i can talk a little bit about one way we engage with you that the local level. we have a program called youth climate action now. we help support young people in different communities to go to their local government and try to get laws passed to commit cities to reduce emissions at levels required by science.
7:09 pm
to do that we partner with teachers. we partner with youth organizations and one of our key partners in this effort is a group called earth guardians. they are also a plaintiff organization on the federal lawsuit and earth guardians has cruise all over the country and all over the world. any young person who wants to get involved and be part of this plaintiff group can start a crew or join a crew from earth guardians and they can also connect to our children's trust and get plugged into a local effort. >> another thing we are doing is we are gearing up to try to do something for april 22 that will educate children about the constitution, but climate change and about our courts.
7:10 pm
julia, one other question for you. when you speak briefly about how our children's trust was created and where it came from? c sure. i was an environmental lawyer for a long time bringing cases to protect and that i had children and really came to realize that climate change is going to be the issue that would define their lives. i was frustrated with the whack-a-mole approach of trying to beat down all these bad environmental projects and i would bring cases that would clearly have nine lives. they do an environmental review and stopped dead and another environmental review. we are seeing that processed in the access and xl pipeline's that obama stopped and they are attempting to bring back. we are getting at the systemic rob lowe of climate change.
7:11 pm
i heard mary speak at the university of washington and she was talking about applying the public trust. she had been looking for lawyers to bring these cases that she had been talking about for a few years and i happened to be one of those crazy lawyers. we met and started talking about where it is and i decided i wanted to take on this effort at bringing campaigns coordinate across the country and eventually the world and support lawyers will to review these cases on behalf of young people that was the origin and again it's really dependent on people like thea who come forward to help lead this effort. >> do you have a message for san francisco's children and their
7:12 pm
parents that you would like for this audience to carry forward? my honest opinion would be to inform young people in views about climate change and inform them of the court's powers and what's going on with this case. definitely in these coming months once the trial happens organizing people to hold rallies throughout the trial which may be weeks on end. starting individual movements is powerful and climate change is an environmental justice issue and i think that's why there are different civil rights movements and joining all these other different rallies going on. it's really important.
7:13 pm
it's an issue that infringes on a lot of different rights so supporting other people is important for all of us to be apart of. also spreading the message of hope that something like this is going on with this new administration. c thanks. another question is what is going to happen here. i get to change hats. put on the white hat. so today we substituted in for barack obama president donald j. trump as the defendant in our case and we are hoping downstream to take his deposition.
7:14 pm
the status conference julia alluded to that occurred earlier this week, the court told us that it wanted to focus on the science that we have incredible scientists, a blue ribbon panel of scientists who are going to talk both about the scope of the problem and how we can remedy the problem. this is going to be science not alternative facts. as we were gearing up for this case we did a lot of informal discovery. we went to web sites and we saw documents. for example a 1983 report from the epa. can we delay greenhouse warming? there are reports to congress where they pinpoint 2015 as the timeframe where if we continue on in business as usual we are
7:15 pm
going to hit a tipping point. they were too far off and all these reports strongly urge the executive department to do something about climate change and unfortunately they continue on with business as usual. we will troubled when the new administration started taking web sites down. we have sent out a letter telling them to preserve the information. we are also taking steps to take the deposition of rex tillerson both in his role as chair and ceo of exxonmobil on the executive committee of the american petroleum institute and now what is he going to do about the significant problems in his role as secretary of state? the other side wants to depose our children.
7:16 pm
they want to say well we want to take the depositions from people like thea about are you being injured by climate change? my view courses give me a break but they are going to do that and the government has also indicated its considering appealing the decision. julia alluded to judge higgins. finally we are hopeful to have a trial in this case and in the fall and winter of 2017 and that is going to be three to six weeks where the court will put science on and we will see what kind of defense the federal government and the fossil fuel industry grow against us. clark chair of the environmental resources. your listing to the commonwealth club of california. unfortunately we have reached the point in our program for one last question.
7:17 pm
what we have gathered is a lot of questions and i really appreciate that from the audience. i do want to thank you but we just have time for one last question. phil will get back to you for that famous last question and i want the radio audience to know that phil is presently wearing his white cowboy hat. >> this is a question that julie is going to answer. if we are successful in trial what kind of consequences will the federal government and the fossil fuel industry face if we win this case life is going to change in a really good way. we are going to have a national plan that sets forth how we transition quickly out of the fossil fuel-based energy system including transportation.
7:18 pm
we are going to be off fossil fuels probably by 2040 predominantly in the united states and that effort is going to spread around the world. that's all happen and one thing i want everyone to know who is listening we are also working with the top technical experts and economists around the world who already have -- are developing plans for how we do this and it's reasonable. the only reason hasn't been done is there hasn't been the political will to do it. we will all be better off in healthier and our communities as a result. that's what happens if we win and i will say one last thing. that is we need everyone's help. we have massive resources and our children's trust is a small small -- small nonprofit. we rely on donations and we called to mobilized to stamp these kids when we get a trial in the fall of this year.
7:19 pm
wherever you live dewey can write letters to the editor, get the word out about this case. it's going to be the trial of the century on climate. thank you. [applause] >> thank you julia osan and tia if you could add one last sentence on what is the most important for you to tell her audience. >> i would say i'm a part of this case so i can look my children and i can tell them that i fought against climate change. i think that's a stance that we are all taking. how we going to tell future generations that we dealt with it and the outcome of this case
7:20 pm
will decide how the marmot looks for future generations. [applause] >> we are going to leave the last few minutes of this discussion to take you live now to the u.s. senate for birth pro forma session. no legislative business is scheduled for today. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 20, 2017. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roy blunt, a senator from the state of missouri, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. the senate is back in session on monday for legislative business. among the items on next week's agenda a confirmation vote for
7:21 pm
former georgia governor sonny purdue to be the agriculture secretary. earlier this year nasa announced the discovery of seven previously unknown earthlike planets at the edge of our solar system. up next here on c-span2, five scientists from nasa talk about the discovery. >> afternoon. i'm felicia from the office of communications and we are live at nasa headquarters. we have some exciting news on worlds outside of our stroller system today. first we will have presentations from all of our panelists and then we will answer questions from those on the phone and social media. to ask a question via social media please use the #at nasa. today's participants are thomas associate administrator of the science mission direct your at nasa headquarters inas


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on